Jasper Cabinet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of JASPER CABINET COMPANY and UNITED FURNITURE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL. 331, C. I. O.
Case No. 11-R-7&;.-Decided May 5, 1945
M11r. Frank T. Douthitt, of Bloomington, Ind., and Mr. Harold J.
Jerger, of Jasper, Ind., for the Union.
Messrs. P. McKinley Harris and 1F. S. Love, of Louisville, Ky., and
Mr. Otto J. Schaaf, of Jasper, Ind., for the Company.
Miss Aida Casanas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Furniture Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 331, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Jasper Cabinet Company, Jasper, Indiana, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Clifford L. Hardy, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Jasper, Indiana, on April 6,
1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to "file briefs with the Board.
At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the Union's proof of interest is insufficient. For the
reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Jasper Cabinet Company is an Indiana corporation engaged in the
manufacture of home desks, secretaries, and bookcases. During the
61 N L. R. B., No. 159,
961
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
year ending March 1, 1945, the Company purchased raw materials
amounting in value to more than $100,000, approximately 50 percent
of which was received from outside the State of Indiana. During the
12 months ending March 1, 1945, the Company's sales of products
exceeded a value of $250,000, and approximately 50 percent was
shipped to points outside the State of Indiana.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's employees until
the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company , within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks to represent all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Company, including firemen and watchmen but exclud-
The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 57 authorization cards, which
bore apparently genuine original signatures , and were dated as follows : 35 in January 1945,
20 in February 1945, 1 in March 1945, and 1 undated . There are approximately 103
employees in the appropriate unit working at the present time in the Company's plant
At the end of the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
there has been "an utter lack of proof of any kind that the Union represents even one
employee " We have stated repeatedly that authorization cards are not required to be
submitted to the Board as the basis for a finding for or against any party to the proceeding.
but as a prima facie evidence that the petitioning union has sufficient interest to justify
the Board in proceeding with its investigation . Accordingly, we find no merit in the
Company' s contention Matter of Sunset Motor Lines, 59 N L R. B 1434
Equally unfounded is the Company ' s further contention that the Union ' s showing of
representation should be deemed insubstantial on the ground that the Company 's employees
now in the armed forces , approximately 95 in number , should be counted together with
those presently working in the plant , for the purpose of estimating the proportion allegedly
represented by the Union . The Company ' s employees in the armed services , although
entitled to vote in the election herein directed if they present themselves at the polls,
are not at present directly concerned in the choice of a bargaining agent. ( As to their
right to ratify or disaffirm any choice presently made by the Company's other employees,
sre Matter of Mine Safety Appliances Company, 55 N L R B 1190 ) Hence, in determin-
ing whether or not it is probable that a majority of employees participating in the election
will vote for a bargaining representative , it is unnecessary , and it would be misleading,
to count the group now in military service.
JASPER CABINET COMPANY 963
ing office and clerical employees, foremen, and supervisors. The only
controversy with respect to the unit concerns assistant foremen and
watchmen.
The Company contends that its assistant foremen 2 should be in-
cluded in the unit; the Union requests their exclusion on the ground
that they are supervisory employees. With the possible exception of
the assistant foreman in the finishing room,3 the assistant foremen
appear to work generally on production work; they do very little
instruction and are not consulted in questions concerning transfers,
hiring or discharging, lay-offs or disciplinary action. Although the
Union seeks the exclusion of these employees, the testimony of its wit-
nesses substantiated the Company's assertion that they are not, in
fact, supervisory employees as usually defined by the Board. We shall
not therefore exclude the assistant foremen from the unit as a class,
but we will exclude supervisory employees who have the authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
The Company further contends that the watchmen should be ex-
cluded while the Union requests their inclusion. The only evidence
that appears in the record regarding these employees shows that
they, are called "firemen" as well as watchmen and they are not depu-
tized or militarized. In accordance with our usual policy we shall
include the watchmen in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Company at its Jasper, Indiana plant, including firemen and
watchmen, but excluding all office and clerical employees, and super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein,4 subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
s This term includes the working foremen.
One, Ray Gunselman.
The Union , by requesting that employees hired since the date of the hearing be
excluded from participation in the election , in effect contends that an earlier pay roll be
used to determine eligibility to vote. We see no persuasive reason for such a, departure
from our usual policy.
964 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the end of the school year the Company expects to employ six
high school students. They will work at production and mainte-
nance tasks. The Union contends, over the objection of the Company,
that these employees should be ineligible to participate in the elec-
tion. It is unlikely that at the time of our Direction of Election there
will be any such employees working for the Company. However, if
any such employees are listed on the pay roll used to determine eligi-
bility, we are of the opinion that they would be ineligible to partici-
pate in the election, since these school students will presumably ter-
minate their employment with the Company at the end of the sum-
mer season and it does not appear that-they have a substantial ex-
pectancy of either permanent or regular seasonal employment.5
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulation s-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DI EOTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Jasper Cabinet
Company, Jasper, Indiana, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of
this Direction, including employees who did not work during the said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
ployees who have since quit orrbeen discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by United Furniture
Workers of America, Local 331, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
5 Matter of Detroit Creamery Company, Arctic Ice Cream Plant, 60 N. L. R. B 178;
see also Matter of Johnson-Handley-Johnson Company, et al, 51 N. L. R. B. 1282; Matter
of Sierra Pacific Power Company, 56 N. L. R B 458; of Matter of Wagner Folding Box
Corporation, 49 N. L. It. B. 346.